Friends, that wide and deep field of winners (he said ironically) running for the Democratic nomination for President is nearing a critical juncture: the first actual voting in the state of Iowa. It's less than one month away. This week's Newsmaker Show, therefore, will get you all caught up on the state of the Democratic race, which, in a nutshell, is about as competitive and wide open as it could be. This bodes well for a long (and grueling) contest!
Brian and I also discuss the nuts and bolts of the impeachment standoff, as well as the tensions with Iran. I take Trump's side in the U.S.-Iran melee, as you might expect, and I explain why in detail.
This week we also cover Woodrow Wilson's un-finest hour: the Fourteen Points, which helped end World War I, at the cost of alienating the German people and sowing the seeds for another war. We also talk about the conclusion of the Cuban Civil War in 1959, and why the rise of Castro didn't make a communist Cuba inevitable, but it was nonetheless a major blow to the United States and its strategic position in Latin America and beyond.
Tune in, why don't you? It's broadcasting gold!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l_3iWCoeAE&feature=youtu.be
Dr. Waddy: In addition to your observations, with which I agree, I would add: a significant factor is that the Persians are an ethnic group distinctly and historically different from Arabs (and their erstwhile Turkish masters) and one perceived by the non Iranian middle east as a proven and fundamental threat.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, Trump and his clearly seen resolve was the death of the most vicious political entity since Pol Pot's regime over Cambodia, ISIS. Both were monstrous growths borne of idealism unbridled by the historical restraints so fortuitously possessed of those countries of the British tradition.
Dr. Waddy: In my opinion, any Dem criticism of President Trump's decision to take out that Iranian General is completely discredited by their party's unrelenting, indiscriminate assault on his person, his family, his values and his performance. They are beneath serious consideration of their views due to their demonstrated, all encompassing prejudice.
ReplyDeleteYou hope that Dems are not hoping for Iranian victory. With respect, I submit that their record shows them to be most likely to be of that mind. They are the party of McGovern, of the Clintons, of Obama. Their all encompassing hatred for America is,in my opinion, manifest. Oh, sure, some of them are loyal Americans but they are shamefully enthralled by a party led by those who would "fundamentally transform us, by ANY means". They proved that when they went to the wall for North Vietnamese savages and when they prevented President Bush I's rest with raucous auditory assaults outside the White House in 1991. They proved it by their emotionally confirmed support for a woman who would have, with relish and absolute determination, have worked far leftist political correctness on a sinful real America.
Dr.Waddy: I agree with you; let Madame Pelosi have her way. The more she thrashes, the more she condemns her cause.
ReplyDeleteWas the killing of the Iranian enemy a distraction from impeachment? No! President Trump has nothing to fear from "impeachment" and much to gain, so why would he work to mask it? Impeachment is a monumental mistake for the desperate Dems, so why restrain it?
Woodrow Wilson's idealism manifested a, yes, provincial and ultimately failed effort at European concord. I never knew, before your comments, that Germany agreed to the Armistice in expectation of an equitable peace.. Wilson had little comprehension of the history of European hurly burly. And dynamics beyond his ken were at work in that German nation which, when motivated, is so very, very fierce. Wilson wished the Germans no ill but he had little comprehension of their pride and of France's antipathy to it.
Good point about the Persians, Jack. Most Iraqis are Shiites, yes, but they're still Iraqis, and I would hope an appeal to nationalism might help us to turn the tide against Iranian infiltration...
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the Left's aid and comfort to North Vietnam during the Vietnam War was outrageous. I won't say the Dems, because back then the party still contained many Cold Warriors and patriots. I think now, quite honestly, they're incapable of perceiving any potential conflict between unbridled Trump hatred and the national interest. They're just that delusional.
Yes -- let's hoist Pelosi on her own petard. I see Graham is determined to hold a trial. I'm not sure I see the point, at this stage...
Wilson meant well vis-a-vis the Germans, and his idealism undoubtedly made his assurances to them more credible. Unfortunately, that only deepened their sense of betrayal once the 14 Points were (inevitably) jettisoned.
Dr. Waddy: Unrestrained and untempered idealism has wrought much evil. In Shaw's St. Joan the King says to Joan's spirit "its you 'good' people who do all the big wrongs" . Certainly that's not always true; the world benefitted beyond measure from Lincoln's idealism.
ReplyDeleteOne of the settings in which idealism is to be condemned is when it endorses ideas already tragically disproven. Its one of the main reasons I am so hostile to the left; they ought to know better than to try reprising doctrines which proved terribly wrong headed in the 20th century. They are incapable of perceiving or admitting this so we must defend civilization by defeating them
Hmm. I'm pondering your statement that Lincoln's idealism was beneficial... Certainly not to anyone in the short term: the Civil War was his most immediate legacy. After that rights improved dramatically for most blacks...until the KKK asserted control and took many of those rights away. The South was also impoverished for generations, from which no one benefited. I'm not saying Lincoln's ideals were mistaken, but arguably by moving too quickly towards their fulfillment he may have caused lots of unnecessary suffering, to Southern blacks most of all.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Lincoln was a transcendentalist, which suggests that he considered seemingly unattainable goals yet worth pursuing and that view has been ,and continues to this day to be, a source of much misfortune.
ReplyDeleteBut the benefit the world derived from him was a product of his devotion to an ideal of the U.S. as a critical experiment in democracy and that the destruction of the Union would be applauded by those who thought it wrongheaded at the very least. He could not have creditably predicted the history of the 20th century and the advent of the terrible, technologically empowered tyrannies of that century but it is probable, I think, that only a united U.S. (with, by the way, Southerners as the backbone of our superlative military)saved the world from their consummate evil and our strength was the product of Lincoln's arguably idealistic faith and his unconquerable will.
Dr. Waddy: I should add: the destruction of the Union might well have taken by autocrats to be proof that American style democracy had failed. In a world in which even Britain had much democratic progress yet to be made and where Russian, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian absolutism still loomed large, it may have taken an idealist to invest in the American conflict such significance.
ReplyDeleteJack: I agree completely that the tentative victory of democracy in the late twentieth century was never inevitable, and a thousand things could have derailed it. The collapse of the USA would certainly be on the list. The great irony of Lincoln is that no man put the Union at greater risk -- and none did more to save it.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I've always believed that it was southern perceptions of Lincoln's intentions that caused secession and that Lincoln had been relatively cautious in attacking slavery (which of course he did loathe). But now I'm going to do more reading about his Senatorial and Presidential csmpaigns because I think that is where he was introduced to the country.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy: Castro: My main beef with him is that the extensive coverage of his triumphal entry into Havana preempted many of the TV shows I wanted to see back then.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I know next to nothing about his convictions. In your opinion, was he turned into a Marxist by disenchantment with a U.S.for which he originally harbored good will? Or was he an always committed communist who sought to deceive the U.S. as to his intentions because he knew the U.S. to be the nemesis of communism and needed time to consolidate his power. In the event, once he allowed the placement of Soviet nukes in Cuba he presented the U.S. with what any President had to regard as an existential threat; I've read that he urged the Soviets to launch. Was he as dreamy as to think that Cuba would benefit from the resulting CHAOS or was he simply unhinged?
Dr. Waddy: I've been doing some reading about Lincoln's 1850's life and I think I understand far better your opinion on his influence on the advent of secession and the resulting Civil War. A different approach might have headed off the war and preserved the Union ( to the world's benefit nonetheless in the 20th century). I have read historians who think the war was inevitable and think their views creditable (my son maintains that the election of Lincoln and consequent secession was not due to hostility to Lincoln himself but of perceived numerical electoral verities the South saw as existentially threatening to their culture). He's not a historian but is a perceptive and extensive reader. I dunno, but I now think your view supportable.
ReplyDeleteJack, I don't know nearly enough about Castro to comment intelligently on when and how he became a Marxist, but it seems to me that, if he ever encouraged the Soviets to launch their Cuban-based nukes, it could only be because he thought a) the U.S. was close to invading Cuba and b) the Soviets couldn't be trusted to defend it conventionally. In a word, therefore, he would have been desperate.
ReplyDeleteCould the Civil War have been prevented? No doubt it could. Politics is the art of the possible, however, and, given the gulf in attitudes between North and South, one could easily argue that no viable path to reconciliation existed. The key factor, I would say, is the rapid progress of the abolitionist movement in a moral and cultural sense in the 19th century. If the South was worried, it had good reason to be...
Dr. Waddy: Again I am hampered by my ignorance of American history 1815 to 1860. I will strive to remedy that. I am surprised to hear you accord such significance to the Abolitionist movement. It may have been reflected among Union soldiers, many of whom disclaimed any regard for blacks, some of whom expressed much hostility to the idea that the war was being fought to end slavery. Of course some Union guys were inspired by the idea that they were fighting for such a transcendently civilized cause. It may have justified the horrors of the battlefield for them.
ReplyDeleteBut was it reasonable for a South distanced by the far more significant geographical separation of that time from the far North to have thought its culture under existential threat from the abolitionists? Yes, I agree.
Dr. Waddy: For sure, Castro had to have known he was about to be invaded. That he would have had doubt about Soviet resolve to defend him is very plausible although we now know the Soviet officer commanding the tactical nukes on the island had leave to use them on an American beach head. Would he have done it? Had he hesitated or refused would K have been overthrown by hardliners intent on taking Berlin? Had they been used we would surely have escalated and that probably would have led to the launch of the Soviet IRBMs in Cuba and, at the very least, our IRBMs in Italy and Turkey (on Rostov on Don, Sevastopol and other targets short of complete engagement. Could it have been stopped then? We would have lost several large southern military bases and maybe Houston or Atlanta.)Perhaps Castro reasoned: "Well, I survived all those years in the bush, I can do it again".
ReplyDeleteJack, the potential for WWIII in October/November 1962 was far greater than we realized at the time. Soviet subs had nuclear torpedoes, Soviet ground units had tactical nukes...and American commanders were itching to start shooting. Little Jack could have been vaporized with shocking ease. It's a very interesting question whether, once nukes start exploding, anyone would have had the ability to put the genie back in the bottle. MAD is just a theory, after all. It would be nice to thunk humankind is smart enough to step back from the brink of total annihilation, but who knows for sure...
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: For most of us, nuclear explosions are unimaginable. My Uncle was part of those desert explosions in the early '50's and he said he saw those distant trenches he was in undulate and vibrate under the shock. He died of cancer in the '90's but he told me, "if I had the choice to go through it again, I would. Its the price of freedom". Just think , STALIN had that force by then!
ReplyDeleteI base my perception of an atomic bombing on that and on a picture I only recently saw, taken by someone on the ground at Hiroshima; the mushroom cloud was monstrous and it was torn by savage lightning bolts!
In October, 1962 we faced that possibility in Buffalo and we knew it but it was surreal. Its so strange to think we once went through it in our otherwise ordinary lives.